2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is the owner of the building B in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant building”).

On July 31, 2014, the Defendant first issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that the use of 52.45 square meters and 52.45 square meters (hereinafter “instant 1 and 2 floors”) on the ground of the first class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the instant 1 and 2 floors”) among the instant buildings was the first class neighborhood living facilities, but the Plaintiff used it as a house without permission. On September 17, 2014, the corrective order was issued by setting the deadline for correction as of October 7, 2014, and the corrective promotion was conducted by setting the deadline for correction as of November 30, 2014, and issued a pre-announcement of the imposition of a non-performance penalty.

On November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff did not comply with the above corrective order. On December 4, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition imposing KRW 6,241,550 on the Plaintiff a charge for compelling the performance (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

The use of the first and second floors in the building ledger is the first class neighborhood living facilities (wons), and the use of the third floor is the single house.

The entrance of the 1st floor of the instant building is in the same form as the household house, such as a primary seal is installed, and can be used from the 1st to the 3th floor through internal stairs. At present, one household comprised of five members, such as the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s spouse, and children, and one household comprised of three members, including the Plaintiff’s spouse, and one household, the Plaintiff’s server, has completed the move-in report.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings as to the disposition of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case as to the plaintiff's assertion as to the validity of the disposition of this case is limited to a construction business operator, and the plaintiff was aware that the use of the building of this case was wholly a house. However, the disposition of this case where the plaintiff imposed a non-performance penalty on the plaintiff without considering these circumstances should be revoked by unlawful means.

The plaintiff raises an objection in the complaint.